Thursday, September 27, 2007

The Totalitarian Entente

"At a time when we are fighting terrorism abroad," eructated the squalid mass of corruption known as Ted Kennedy, "the United States Senate says, `We are going to fight terrorism, hatred and bigotry here at home.'"

The instrument chosen to carry out this domestic "anti-terrorism" campaign is a "hate crimes" measure appended to the defense authorization bill. In predictably manipulative fashion, the measure was named for murder victim Matthew Shepard, a diminutive college freshman who was savagely beaten to death about a decade ago by a couple of deranged bullies in Laramie, Wyoming. Because Shepard was a homosexual, he has been consecrated as a martyr to the cause of "gay rights," and the hideous crime committed against him depicted as a symbolic indictment of the attitude ignorantly and dishonestly called "homophobia."

Republicans from the White House down opposed the amendment, more out of a desire to palliate the GOP's Evangelical constituency than an honest concern over constitutional principle. The chief complaint was that the amendment endangers the "defense"* bill, since it might trigger a presidential veto. (I know -- I'll wait for the derisive laughter to subside.)

The Republicans understand that they have to pantomime outrage over the bill, but after a news cycle or two they'll almost certainly drop the pretense.

This little melodrama illustrates anew something we can't be too frequently reminded of: There is no material difference between the two branches of the Establishment Party at the wholesale level.

At the retail level -- where earnest but mistaken citizens honestly believe that the Jackass and Pachyderm are mortal enemies divided by irreducible conflicts over tangible principles -- there are significant differences of worldview. Thus anti-war activists invest their hopes in the Democrats, and social conservatives look on the Republicans as all but anointed by God.

When it comes down to cases, however, the Democrats are always willing to fund killing abroad in order to expand the machinery of social engineering at home, and the Republicans are always indecently eager to do the reverse.

The two branches of the Establishment party are joined in a totalitarian entente, one of them promoting militarism abroad and police state coercion at home, the other pushing wealth redistribution and social engineering everywhere. Granted, the dichotomy isn't absolute, and each branch dabbles in the other's metier -- something about which I'll have more to say anon. But as a matter of "branding," the division of labor described above is pretty reliable.

And the dialectical synthesis of these two varieties of statism is a bigger, bloodier, costlier and more invasive welfare/warfare/social engineering state that is literally at war with the American people.

This isn't a promise merely to enlist law enforcement in an effort to combat violent crime. That statement should be taken as nothing less than a threat to make war on those of us whose views of homosexuality -- newly enshrined as a protected federal category for the purposes of hate crimes enforcement -- are shaped by the Bible.

The entire hate crimes concept is innately totalitarian, in that it addresses individual values and attitudes and proscribes those deemed unsuitable by society's self-appointed supervisors.

The key distinction between authoritarian and totalitarian states is that despotisms of the latter variety claim jurisdiction over the minds of their subjects. "Laws" enacted by such regimes regulate individual beliefs and attitudes, which are subject to the scrutiny of enforcement bodies. The subjects themselves are liable to punishment and "correction" should they persist in holding opinions deemed to be "anti-social" by those in charge of the regime.

A couple of generations ago, liberal Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter brushed up against that distinction, writing in his dissent from the ruling in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette: "Law is concerned with external behavior, and not with the inner life of man."

Defining the motives of a suspect can aid a criminal investigation and convince a jury; this is a proper role for police authorities. Punishing the motive, rather than the crime, is not; it is a task carried out by what C.S. Lewis called "official straighteners" -- agents of a therapeutic totalitarianism, secret police empowered to tear windows into the souls of men through coercion and rearrange their values to suit a ruling elite.

We have reason to believe that "official straighteners" would be plentiful and very busy during the reign of President Rodham-Clinton, should such a fate be visited upon us.

Significantly, while Kennedy and his ilk are expanding the powers of official attitude control here at home, the Bush Regime is doing the same business abroad. The Washington Post has reported that occupation authorities in Iraq are waging war in the "battlefield of the mind" against detainees, seeking to "bend them back to our will," in the words of Gen. Douglas Stone, commander of detention facilities there.

Those who accept "religious enlightenment" are recommended for release, Gen. Stone explains. Those deemed to be "irreconcilables" -- you know, people who take irrational and inexplicable offense over a foreign occupation of their country and don't readily take dictation in religious matters from the invaders -- are to be "put ... away" permanently.

Don't be too surprised if the administration of our next elected dictator tries to adapt the same method for dealing with "irreconcilables" here at home.

I generally dislike hate crimes laws in principle, but on the issue of homosexuality I have to ask how different is the enactment of the liberals' hate crimes laws from the conservatives' push for a constitutional amendment dictating a rigid definition of family to this country's citizens? Aren't both sides trying to control our inner selves through legislation?

I know you are a very strong Ron Paul supporter, so I'll let him speak for me in these regards: "I'm supportive of all voluntary associations, and people can call them whatever they want." (from his Candidates@Google interview).

Actually, Mr. Grigg, the pentacles in the image of the Pachydermal Jackass are wrong. They should be pointing down, in the Left-Hand Path manner.

Apparently the Republican Party elephant logo used to have its trinity of pentacles pointing up (in the White Magick manner), but apparently circa 8 years or so ago the national Republican Party inverted them.

Below is how the current Republican Party symbol looks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Republicanlogo.svg

Below is how it used to be with the pentacles pointing up:

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/346/greatrealitycomimagesgozf9.gif

Below is the John Kerry for President sign, with a single pentacle that points down:

From my perspective, Will, you're preachin' to the choir. So I agree wholeheartedly with this installment.

The only real reason I support Ron Paul myself is because he has demonstrated by action, rather than merely running off at the mouth about his campaign stances on issues, that he is a staunch constitutionalist and genuine believer in small unobtrusive government.

Ergo, so even though there are issues I disagree with him about, for instance his support of any voluntary associations, I think he would manage a hands-off approach across the board, which is fine by me. I mean by that that although he supports voluntary unions, that some may call "marriage" or whatever, that on the flip-side, others who disagree can likewise decide not to recognize them as a "marriage" or any such thing in particular and not be shackled, coerced, and/or forced by government to recognize them as "marriages."

IOW, if I owned a business and I decided to provide marriage benefits, I'd provide those to those who are married by the biblical definition. It's my business, after all. Likewise, the same thing or similar could be done by, say, Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream wanting to provide benefits to what they viewed as "marriages," domestic partnerships of any kind, whatever. And so on across-the-board. It's their business, after all.

The same with other major issues in the culture; take drugs, for example. By all means, end this damn "War on Drugs" so long as I likewise can deal with a junkie or druggie on my own terms. For example, I can have drug tests at my business and refuse to hire druggies, fire druggies, etc., etc. If that would be the case, great, let's DO end the so-called "War on Drugs"!

So, precisely because I believe he would truly be a largely "hands-off" President is a major reason why I support Ron Paul. (Of course, as I mentioned in a past thread, we REALLY need many Ron Pauls in the Congress and we'd be in good shape, at the federal level at least. But I digress...)

With the marriage issue in particular, the problem I see here is that too many folk seem to have eagle eyes on evangelicals who support biblical marriage and the government's recognition of such, while simultaneously ignoring the same process taking shape and taking place in government prompted by the homosexual camp.

Sadly, however, I believe this "hands-off" approach, while nice to talk about, would be unsustainable, in the long-term at least, because this isn't the way it works in the real world, historically or the present. Somebody's, or some segment of the population's, worldview is going to prevail at some point in a farrago nation-state and government and the attendant LAW will be so structured accordingly. That's just the cold historical reality in a farrago state, good or bad. Many peoples, cultures, and tongues made up the farrago Roman Empire, but the Romans made up the rules. So, it would be here by whatever contemporary group, although probably not along ethnic or racial lines, of course, but by cultural lines. Regardless of the mechanics involved in getting to that point, it still results in everyone living by a particular group's rules and regulations.

Like I alluded to in past thread, only half-jokingly <8|, that this so-called "United" States is nothing of the sort and we should break up into several smaller nation states or even down to the clan or tribal level and associate with whom we want culturally, ethnically, and religiously, perhaps, and where we want among those tribes/clans.

We can still dream, at least for the time being 8).

Lastly, I agree that when (not if) the Shub Queen is coronated, the cultural battle is only going to intensify and heat up and the legal fallout from those battles will quite likely result (if the true believers hold steadfast, that is) in a good portion of the increasingly shrinking minority of the population known as the hardy "irreconcilables" imprisoned or, in extreme cases, even becoming corpses.

As we've seen evidence of already, of course, that some of this is already happenin' so it won't be anything "new" only that these things will most likely intensify under the Lizard Queen's reign.

I recently started listening to your "Liberty Minute" online. I originally had heard your "Liberty Minute" @ The American View. They are breif, yet insightful.

However, I'm saddened to see the attempted representation of Christ in this blog post. May I urge you to leave such images. (Exodus 20:4)(Isaiah 53:2)(Acts 17:29-31)(Romans 1:21-23)

Perhaps you might find this preview of a book edifying (I hope it is): http://books.google.com/books?id=soEG9FxBoX0C&pg=PP1&dq=J.+Virgil+Dunbar&ei=Ns79RtneK5mepgLyt9TxDw&sig=Ky-gKjo6rVmJws97SyBHLkn9j6w#PPA57,M1

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free!

Don't mean to go completely OT here, Will, but remember your Power vs. Authority piece? I have an RSS feed to TheNewspaper.com and just found this out. You may already know about it, but I'll relay it here anyway.

"A search for the photo on Google traced it to the 1971 film, THX1138 (which I've never seen)."

THX1138 is a movie of a dystopian future by George Lucas (Star Wars). I understand that it was his senior project in film school. The movie is worth sitting through because it shows one man's struggle against a system which drugs citizens into submission and controls their every move.

The scene in the photo is when THX1138 is incarcerated by the android police force. The sticks are primative tasers / cattleprods.

Hopefully, the worst that will result from Kennedy's self-righteous campaign will be something sappy and wasteful like federally mandated "values" training in the public schools. Perhaps the children will be taught that incidents of rape, robbery, and murder are far more hurtful when the motives behind such crimes are determined to be politically incorrect. With luck, the "measure" will stop short of thought police, reeducation camps, and First Amendment infringements.

Whether it is admitted or not, we live in reality where consequence is determined by preceding actions according to natural law which defines the environment.

Here are some intellectual tidbits that may help you to see that, what appears as chaos is instead the sum total of more basic, understandable factors at work. More ominous yet is that our ancestors understood and solved these species threatening problems. Our woes are therefore artificially created, for the profit of the few, at the expense of the many.

Regards;

Bill Ross

(Electronics Design Engineer)

The "rule of law" is a precisely defined law. It is the highest law of mankind, stated below:

“the suppression of forceful and fraudulent methods of goal seeking”

“all are treated equally by the law”. This means ALL, including king and judges

“absolute property rights”

This in turn is based on the fact that human behavior (the topic of law) is about goal seeking. In the seeking of any goal, there are only three possible methods: force, fraud and honest trade. Any transaction that is not an honest, mutually agreed trade will cause a self-defensive response (conflict) from the victim whose survival has been affected.

"The Rule of Law" is the glue that keeps all of mankind acting together in common interest, tied together by mutual dependence of trade, on an evolutionary path to excellence. Force and fraud creates conflict and destroys civilizations. Mankind is now on a devolutionary path to extinction because the co-operation once forced by "the rule of law" has been replaced by legitimizing force and fraud for those who incorrectly believe they wield power.

Double standards. The Matthew Sheppard murder was hideous, but aren't all murders hideous? When two gay men tortured and killed a male teen during rough gay sex, the media gagged itself. Why? Wasn't this a hideous crime too? It's bad enough we have a double standard between crimes by straights against gays, and crimes by gays against straights. Must we also have these stupid "hate crimes" laws that create a double standard between murder and murder? Who thinks up all this stupid shit?

Hate Crimes laws are unAmerican. One can see use of a defendant's feelings in proving MOTIVE but not in penalty enhancements.

I tell you that these laws poison the goodwill that Americans can and should have for each other. They are DESIGNED to do so. The ADL is no friend of liberty and they are the leading proponents of these thought crime laws.